Does walkable neighbourhood design influence the association between objective crime and walking?

Table 3 Walkable neighbourhood characteristics and their associations walking frequency/week in adults 25–65 years (n = 3,487)

Variable	Model 1		Model 2
Variable	Relative change (CI)¹	p	Relative change (CI)¹	p
400 m service area
Residential density	0.999 (0.997-1.001)	0.282	0.999 (0.997-1.001)	0.275
Street connectivity	1.000 (0.999-1.001)	0.860	1.000 (0.999-1.001)	0.831
Local destinations	1.004 (1.001-1.007)	0.018
Hotels, pubs, clubs & restaurants			1.058 (1.016-1.102)	0.006
1600 m service area
Residential density	1.000 (0.995-1.005)	0.954	1.000 (0.994-1.005)	0.871
Street connectivity	1.000 (0.998-1.002)	0.977	1.000 (0.998-1.003)	0.668
Local destinations	1.001 (1.000-1.001)	0.001
Hotels, pubs, clubs & restaurants			1.008 (1.003-1.013)	0.001

¹From negative binomial log-linear models and represents change in walking frequency per unit increase in the spatial variable. Model 1 includes residential density, street connectivity and local destinations. Model 2 includes residential density, street connectivity and a subset of local destinations that are likely to serve alcohol. All models adjust for age, sex, marital status, education and IRSD. Bold denotes p < 0.05.

ISSN: 1479-5868